Exhibit of Foreign and Colonial Beers

An argument that's often been thrown at me in defence of rigid beer style guidelines is that you can't hold beer competitions without them. Even though plenty occurred in the past. For example, the event we're looking at today. Despite it's title as an exhibition, there was a competitive element to it as the beers were given scores.

The exhibition was the idea of a Mr. Boake.

Seldom has a collection of greater interest to the trade been on view in London than the display of foreign and Colonial beers at the works of Messrs. A. Boake, Roberts, and Co., Stratford, between October the 20th and 24th. Great praise is due to Mr. Arthur Boake for having in his recent tour round the world conceived the idea-'of making arrangements with the various brewery companies he visited for the getting together of such an interesting collection; nor must we omit to mention the very excellent way in which this idea was carried into effect. The beers were most tastefully arranged, and every facility was given to those who were present at the exhibition to inspect and taste as many of the samples as they desired.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, November 15th 1902, page 672.

In total, there were around 80 beers exhibited. Coming from Europe, Asia, America, Africa and Australia. Which is pretty impressive given that all would have been shipped by sea. Something which would have taken weeks or even months in 1902. Coordinating the deliveries from all the different parts of the globe must have been a nightmare. I assume that it was mostly arranged by telegram.

I found this an interesting remark on pasteurised beer:

The lager beers of France and Belgium were on the whole very creditable samples; we certainly preferred the non-Pasteurised to tne Pasteurised, as the latter had for the most part the peculiar flavour characteristic of some Pasteurised beers which obscured their original taste.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, November 15th 1902, page 672.

I think I'm with the jury there on pasteurisation.

Slightly weird knowing that I've drunk beer from some of the breweries mentioned. In a couple of cases, even the specific beer.

A good dark lager beer was the Trappist Monastery beer (Holland). Some of the Russian beers were excellent of their kind. A dark lager from the Brasserie Francois Lutoslawski Fils was a very full-drinking sample, resembling the Munich "Salvator Bier” in type, but decidedly sweeter. We determined the original gravity of a sample of this beer, and found it to be 1090. The Lezak beer of a Warsaw firm was a fine pale lager, but quite different from the German pale beers in character, being much fuller. Messrs. D. Carnegie and Co., Goteborg, Sweden, sent a very good sample of stout.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, November 15th 1902, page 672.

Was the La Trappe beer really a Lager? Odd that it's the only Dutch beer represented, as it was pretty small. Also odd that they were exporting to Java.

That Lutoslawski must have been incredibly sweet if it was sweeter than Salvator. Interesting that they, correctly, call Carnegie Porter a Stout. Which, of corse, it was. That's one of the specific beers featured that I've drunk.

Interested in seeing a full list of the beers exhibited? I don't know why I'm asking. I'll be posting them whether you like it or not.

Dublin Porter Shipments 1894 - 1908

From various years of the Brewers' Journal I've managed to assemble quite a neat little table of Porter exports from Dublin. Pretty sure that they are all shipments from Dublin, both to the Britain and abroad. Though the vast majority of, at least, the Guinness shipments were being sent to Britain. Oh, and only a tiny amount was in the form of Porter. It was almost all Stout.

The proportion accounted for by Guinness was on the increase throughout the period covered, rising from 75% in 1894 to 89% in 1908. Which shows how dominant Guinness was in the Dublin trade. Of course, two of the biggest Irish Porter brewers don't appear in the figures. Because Murphy and Beamish & Crawford were based in Cork.

When you see how much bigger Guinness was than the other Dublin breweries it's no surprise that they were the only ones left a couple of decades after the period covered in the tables.

To put the figures into context, total exports of beer from the UK were only around half a million barrels. And beer imports around 50,000 barrels. When Ireland gained independence in 1922, imports suddenly rocketed to around a million barrels. Almost all of it Guinness. 

Dublin Porter Shipments 1894 - 1899
	1894	1895	1896	1897	1896	1897	1898	1899
Guinness and Son	443,629.5	425,833.5	413,344.5	418,921.5	413,344.5	418,921.5	415,225.5	479,535
Mountjoy Brewery	24,522	24,322.5	28,588.5	31,176	31,095	33,907.5	33,561	33,205.5
Jameson, Pim	24,747	28,378.5	31,098	33,907.5	28,588.5	31,176	34,554	33,033
Watkins	39,465	33,004.5	32,302.5	30,501	32,304	30,501	25,242	18,630
D'Arcy and Son	24,402	22,033.5	25,204.5	25,914	25,204.5	25,914	25,740	22,935
Phoenix Brewery	20,133	18,049.5	17,554.5	13,447.5	17,554.5	13,447.5	12,732	11,586
E. & J. Burke	14,014.5	13,741.5	11,316	8,302.5
All others	1,234.5	3,333	4,890	3,700.5	16,206	12,003	5,881.5	15,198
Total	592,147.5	568,696.5	564,298.5	565,870.5	564,298.5	565,870.5	552,942	614,122.5
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 36 1900, January 15th 1900, page 9.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 34 1898, January 15th 1898, page 36.

Dublin Porter Shipments 1900 - 1908
	1900	1901	1902	1905	1906	1907	1908
Guinness and Son	544,792.5	557,806.5	557,236.5	600,318	650,980.5	670,503	687,486
Mountjoy Brewery	33,105	34,278	33,915	30,498	29,562	27,513	25,522.5
Jameson, Pim	32,050.5	32,128.5	28,668
Watkins	17,782.5	16,656	21,552	38,544	39,481.5	36,541.5	36,175.5
D'Arcy and Son	23,326.5	23,056.5	15,201	23,493	27,789	23,472	21,946.5
Phoenix Brewery	10,033.5	8,133	7,423.5
All others	12,511.5	17,737.5	21,696	228	-	-	22,834.5
Total	673,602.0	689,796	685,692	692,991	747,813	758,029.5	768,457.5
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, January 15th 1902, page 9.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 39 1903, January 15th 1903, page 8.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 45 1909, January 15th 1909, page 8.

Let's Brew - 1912 Crowley L

Before you ask, I’ve no idea what “L” might stand for. Light doesn’t seem to make any sense. Nor does London. Those two being the usual meanings of “L” in beer names.

Digging around in the newspaper archives, I’ve found a beer called LFA. Which, along with AK, is described as a Family Ale. There’s a note which says: “LFA is an Ale similar to the above [AK] but lighter, and suitable for summer use.”  The price implies a beer of no more than 1040º. So it can’t be this beer.

Putting the question of the name out of the way, this is a slightly stronger version of AK, being parti-gyled with it. For questions about the recipe, look at the AK I posted earlier.

As you’ll soon see, Crowley had two sets of Pale Ales. This one, which was composed of AK and L, was darker and a bit less heavily hopped. Leaving them with five Pale Ales with a gravity spread of just 16º. Seems a bit of an overkill to me.

1912 Crowley L
pale malt	10.50 lb	92.31%
No. 3 invert sugar	0.875 lb	7.69%
Fuggles 120 mins	1.00 oz
Fuggles 90 mins	1.00 oz
Goldings 30 mins	1.00 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1051
FG	1014
ABV	4.89
Apparent attenuation	72.55%
IBU	37
SRM	9
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	59º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1275 Thames Valley ale

 

Growing hops in Egypt (part two)

More about the, obviously, futile attempt to grow hops in Egypt. This time it's the report complied by Mr. Linton which was mentioned in part one. It doesn't make happy reading.

The School of Agriculture,
Ghizeh, 22nd September, 1902.
Report on the Cultivation of Hops at Ghizeh.
The hop sets were planted on the 7th March, 1898, so that they have now passed through their fifth season of growth. The sets were planted in deep alluvial soil, the plants being 2 yards distant from each other, and the rows a little over 2 yards apart. The initial planting proved very successful, only a few of the sets failing to take root. The whole area occupied by the crop is about three quarters of an acre. To give the hops every chance, no other crop has been sown under them, and by deep hoeing, the surface soil has been kept free and clean. Each year farm-yard manure has been applied around the roots of the plant.

Training.— During their first seasons tho bines were trained up vertical ropes attached to horizontal wires; but for the last two years, to save the plants from the high dry winds, they have been trained vertically to a height of about 8 feet, and then led over more or less horizontal ropes. Experience has shown that this change has had practically no effect on tho amount of vegetation produced by tho plants.

Season of Growth.— From November until the beginning of March the hops received no irrigation, and only enough cultivation to keep the land free from weeds. About the 1st of March the crowns of the hops were cleaned, and shortly afterwards growth began. From this time the plants received a full supply of water, at first being irrigated every 16 days, but later receiving two waterings in this time. This season, in order to retard growth as much as possible, the crowns were undressed, and water was withheld until the shoots had been some time above the ground. During the months of April, May, and June the bines rapidly increased in length, but invariably failed to send out any considerable show of lateral shoots or flowers. The bines about June 15th would average 10 to 12 feet in length, more in the first years, less in the last two seasons. In July the hops “hung fire,” some of the flowers becoming quite ripe — at least dead — while others were still undeveloped. Towards the end of August new bines were produced while the old ones gradually became brown, lost their lower leaves and often died. During September, the young bines kept their green colour but were never very vigorous, although they produced mature flowers. While the quick-growing bines produced few side branches, those bines in active growth during the hottest weather produced few flowers, many exceedingly frail lateral branches, and seldom attained a length of 8 ft. About October 20th the plants were all ripe or dead, and no further increase in vegetation took place. At this time there was the greatest show of crop, and picking was carried out. However, to have obtained all the yield of hops, it would have been necessary to collect intermittently from July. This would have entailed great trouble, and on a largo scale would scarcely have been a financial success, as at no season was there ever any abundance of vegetation or number of mature flowers. The hot months of July and August seem to be more than the plants could bear, and in those months what flowers were produced were always exceedingly small and brittle. The roots of the plants seem also to gradually weaken, and the number of bines produced from the crowns are decreasing, and a good many of tho roots are dead. During this last season it was hoped that by retarding growth in spring the development of the flowers might be kept back until August or September, so that they might escape the deadly month of July. This attempt ended in failure, as the plants without attention or irrigation sent up their bines at their usual season, March. Some of tho plants suffered from the aphid fly, but the attack of this insect was never sufficient to interfere with tho trial with the cultivation of the crop. Of the varieties under experiment the East Kent Goldings have done worst, the other varieties have been also bad.

Briefly, the following are the outstanding features noticed in tho cultivation of the hops:—

1. On planting few of the hops died.
2. The amount of vegetation produced by the crop has always been exceedingly little.
3. The flowers have ripened at various seasons.
4. The bines gave fair promise until the hot weather, when they gradually browned and died.
5. With the return of colder weather in autumn the younger bines wore fairly healthy, but never had anything like the amount of vegetation usually produced by the hop.
6. The vigour of the plants is gradually decreasing, and each year there is less show of leaf and stem. At the same time the stems are shorter and the leaves scarcer.
7. The plants are dying off in gradually increasing numbers.

As the hops have proved such a failure when exposed to the Egyptian summer sun, next year the crop will be restricted to about l-20th of an acre, and will be roofed over with some sacking material. Under those conditions the plants will have a moister atmosphere, and will be protected from the sun during the hottest months. If the hops fail when sheltered, their cultivation at Ghizeh will be given up, as the crop will not do without some great improvement over its present unsatisfactory growth.

[Since the above was written, Mr. Tripp informs us that he will be sending out to Dr. Mackenzie some hop sets from California within the next few weeks.]
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, November 15th 1902, page 644 - 645.

It's all rather sad. I feel quite sorry for the poor hop plants, struggling to survive in a totally unsuitable climate. I'm surprised at how long they persisted with these experiments, given how badly they went.

Growing hops in Egypt (part one)

I was quite surprised to find a report about growing hops in Egypt early in the 20th century.

From what little I know about the growing of hops, they require very specific climatic conditions. One of which is the length of daylight in the summer. Which, in the northern hemisphere, means that there's a limit to how far south hops can be grown. And the limit is much further north than the southern coast of the Mediterranean. Meaning growing hops in Egypt was never going to work.

The Cultivation of Hops in Egypt.
Some years ago we drew attention to the fact that Mr. C. Howard Tripp, managing director to Messrs. Ind, Coope and Co., of Burton-on-Trent and Romford, was endeavouring to start the cultivation of hops in Egypt. The matter was taken well in hand, and, through the kindness of Dr. Mackenzie, the Principal of the School of Agriculture at Ghizeh, near Cairo, three-quarters of an acre of Government land was reserved for making a trial. Mr. Tripp has twice visited Egypt during the last few years, and, on each occasion, thoroughly inspected the hops; they were not sufficiently advanced, nor did there seem to be much prospect of success. The matter has, however, recently been again brought under Mr. Tripp’s notice, and, at his request. Dr. Mackenzie instructed his assistant, Mr. Linton — who is in charge of the hop cultivation at the School of Agriculture above mentioned — to make an exhaustive report on the whole subject.

The Trade has every reason to be grateful for this disinterested enterprise which Mr. Tripp has undertaken, and our readers will be glad to learn that he is nothing daunted by the want of success which has, up to the present, attended the scheme. He has now suggested to Dr. Mackenzie that as the English hop sets, Essex, Worcesters, East Kents, Wealds, have all more or less failed to withstand the trying July heat referred to in the report, Californian hops might, perhaps, prove better adapted to these conditions. Mr. Tripp purposes, therefore, sending Dr. Mackenzie, during this autumn, from California, a quantity of hop sets. It would unquestionably be a great assistance to the trade if it were possible to grow a large quantity of hops, even of the Californian type, in Egypt. No crop is more insidious than the hop, and the shortage of the present season brings this prominently to the minds of brewers. la order that our readers may see for themselves how very thoroughly these interesting experiments have been carried out, we give below in extense the report on the subject already mentioned. If it be found possible to make the necessary arrangements a trial may be made in the neighbourhood of Alexandria, where during the summer the atmosphere is moister and the temperature lower than at Ghizeh.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, November 15th 1902, page 644 - 645.

For anyone brewing in Egypt, locally-grown hops would have been dead handy. Plenty of barley was grown in the Middle East and hops would have been the only ingredient which would have needed to be imported.

I'm not surprised that English hop varieties struggled in the heat of the Egyptian summer. Though, given the daylight requirements of hops, American varieties weren't going to fare much better. Making any attempt at growing hops in Egypt futile. I wonder when they realised how much daylight hops required?

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1912 Crowley AK

You’re probably starting to realise just how common the name AK was before WW I. Being brewed by dozens of breweries across England. It was only after the gravity reductions of the two world wars WW I that the style began dying out.

This looks like a pretty typical example, with a gravity in the mid 1040ºs, light body and relatively modest hopping (for the time). A classic Light Bitter.

The recipe is wonderfully simple. Just two types of pale malt along with some No. 3 invert sugar. Oh, and a ting amount of malt extract, which I’ve omitted as the quantity was so small. I assume that it was included to add extra enzymes.

Not much complication with the hopping, either. There are two types of English hops, both from the 1911 harvest.
 

1912 Crowley AK
pale malt	9.50 lb	92.68%
No. 3 invert sugar	0.75 lb	7.32%
Fuggles 120 mins	1.00 oz
Fuggles 90 mins	1.00 oz
Goldings 30 mins	0.75 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.25 oz
OG	1046
FG	1010
ABV	4.76
Apparent attenuation	78.26%
IBU	36
SRM	8
Mash at	150º F
Sparge at	170º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	59º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1275 Thames Valley ale

 

Oak used in casks

As you may already be aware, UK brewers used almost exclusively Memel oak from the Eastern Baltic to construct their casks.

The discussion which was initiated by Mr. Babington, at the June meeting of the London Institute of Brewing, opened out a very interesting, and, at the same time, a very puzzling question. The timber used in making brewers’ casks is, and has been for countless years, nothing but oak. It is a curious fact, however, that the only kind of oak practically ever used for making casks in which ale is to be stored is that hailing from the Baltic seaports, in other words, the Memel timber.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, October 15th 1902, page 589.

There was, however, one UK brewer bucking this trend.

We believe we are correct in stating that the largest firm of stout brewers in the world use nothing but American timber, and they find it in every way satisfactory. But, from long experience, no brewer of ale will be found who can depend on the Quebec oak as a receptacle for his fine produce. At Guinness’s no cooper ever makes an entire cask. The rough hewn Quebec planks are trimmed by one man, passed on to the next for shaping, and so on, until at length they are pieced together and hooped at the other end of the shop.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, October 15th 1902, page 589.

Can you guess who that one brewer might be? Largest Stout brewer in the world? It has to be Guinness.

Given that Memel oak was expensive, there was an incentive to use the cheaper North American oak. Prompting brewers to attempt various treatments to remove the woody flavour. All to no avail.

The question, however, that interests us, is why we cannot use the American timber for ale casks? Mr. Babington merely expressed the experience of numerous other ale brewers, when he gave that of his own firm. “We fired our Quebec-timber casks; we steamed them; we boiled them ; we boiled with salt water; we stood them for days; we filled them with sour beer; we bi-sulphited them. They went into the trade, and came back with ‘neat’ beer labelled ‘casky.’ Many experiments have been made with a view to elucidate this mystery of the Quebec timber — all to no purpose, we regret to state. One of Mr. Babington’s friends in the coopering trade tried very drastic treatment. He tried common soda with hot water for varying numbers of hours; soda with alum or salts of tartar; salts of tartar with copperas and boiling water; common salt in varying quantities; lime; solution of pearl ash — all, as we have said, to no purpose." Even coating with paraffin did not eliminate the woody flavour. It is true that this now well-known process will render casks less porous, and should thus tend to remedy the evils attendant upon the use of American oak, or any other variety; but, as it happens, the Quebec timber is by no means of a very porous nature; and, except for this curious property of communicating casky flavours to ale, it appears to be an ideal substance for making brewers’ vessels.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, October 15th 1902, page 589.

Not even lining the casks the casks with paraffin helped.

There was scientific research being undertaken into the various types of oak. Though, up unto that point, without any definitive result.

We must confess that some of the methods of treating casks detailed by Mr. Babington do not recommend themselves to us, and, indeed, seem more likely to injure than to cure. For instance, we have never advocated the custom of “pickling” barrels in brine. It is our experience that casks treated with common salt are most difficult to get dry; indeed, they never appear to become thoroughly ary after such treatment, and no doubt the use of pungent chemicals must take some of the “nature” out of the timber, however hard it may be originally. It is very interesting to note that Mr. Matthew J. Cannon is making some experiments on the chemical nature of the various types of oak used in breweries. The tests he has already applied do not afford us any definite information, but his work is, as yet, in its infancy, and he may ere long have some more definite announcement to make. When the nature of these various woods has been established by research, Mr. Cannon will be in a better position to treat his subject scientifically. It is obvious that we must not rob the timber of its valuable resinous constituents, nor of its tannin, for these substances act as powerful preservative agents. We await with deep interest the elucidation of this important problem, as the timber imported from the Baltic is very dear, and it seems rather an odd thing that the good, sound Quebec wood cannot be used in our breweries, on account of practical reasons that, at present, admit of no satisfactory explanation.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, October 15th 1902, page 589.

What was the ultimate resolution? Moving from wooden to metal casks.

Berliner Weisse yeast

This was a fun little article to come across. And not just because it references Schonfeld, the VLB's top-fermentation specialist. But also on account of a feeling of smugness that comes over me knowing that I have a slightly deeper understanding of the topic than the author. Purely because of the advances that have occurred in brewing science in the last 100 year.

The Pitching Yeast of Berlin White Beer.
According to Schonfeld (Wochenschrift für Brauerei), the pitching yeast of Berlin white beer (Weissbier), occupies a unique position among yeasts, inasmuch as, instead of being carefully protected from bacterial infection, it owes its value precisely to its high content of a special kind of bacteria, namely, the rod-like lactic acid bacterium. The usual proportion of yeast cells to bacteria is 4 to 7 to 1. The yeast itself is also characterised by unusually high fermenting power, the attenuation at the close of primary fermentation averaging 70 to 75 per cent., as compared with the 35 to 40 per cent, of ordinary beers.

At one time the brewers did not prepare the pitching yeast themselves, but obtained it from the retailers; but, as this yeast is very liable to degenerate, another source had to be drawn upon, namely, the yeast used in the production of Kottbus bitter beer. At present, however, it has become the custom to prepare the pitching yeast in the brewery, and it has now attained such fixity of type as to be capable of continued use without losing its character.

The lactic ferment is probably of the same origin as those present in sour milk and the acid distillery mash, modified into the present variety by long exposure to the particular environment, and so fixed in type as to be no longer reconvertible. Although the final mashing temperature of this beer is too high to permit the reproduction of similar bacteria, it is probable that, before the employment of the thermometer, the final temperature was appreciably lower; and, as it has always been the custom to work with an open mash-tun during the filtration of the wort, it seems feasible to assume that the lactic bacteria first found their way into the pitching yeast in this manner, and that they have since become acclimatized to the conditions prevailing in the brewing process.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, July 15th 1902, page 436.

This is the bit that struck me: "The yeast itself is also characterised by unusually high fermenting power". Why? Because the very high attenuation in Berliner Weisse isn't as a result of the primary pitching yeast. But of the Brettanomyces that kicks off during secondary fermentation. As this was before Clausen revealed the secondary yeast's existence, you can't really blame the article's author. Especially as, even after everyone knew about Brettanomyces, no-one niticed it in Berliner Weisse until the 1980s.

Did the Lactobacillus really originally get picked from the environment? Sounds feasible to me.

LICENSING (IRELAND) ACT, 1902

Ireland seems yo have had even stricter rules on the issuance of new pub licences than in the rest of the UK. A situation which persists today. It being virtually impossible to create a new licence.

This act from 1902, in principle, forbade the issuing of any new licences for both on and off sales. Pretty damn drastic. There were limited exceptions. Though one of those, replacing a surrendered licence, wasn't really issuing a new licence. The population growth exception, given the then demographics of Ireland, was never likely to come into effect. Between 1900 and 1914 the population declined a little, by around 80,000.

It's interesting how often special rules applied for railway refreshment rooms.

LICENSING (IRELAND) ACT, 1902.
1. This Act shall extend to Ireland only, and may be cited as the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902.

2. From and after the passing of this Act no licence shall be granted for tho sale of intoxicating liquor, whether for consumption on or off the premises, except—

(1) For premises which are now licensed or which were licensed at any time since the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and two; or
(2) For an hotel, which expression shall refer to a house containing at least ten apartments set apart and used exclusively for the sleeping accommodation of travellers, and having no public bar for the sale of intoxicating liquors ; or
(3) For a railway refreshment room.

3. Where, by reason of the expiration of a lease, a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors for consumption on the premises comprised in the lease is extinguished or surrendered, the licensing authority may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, grant a licence for suitable premises in the immediate vicinity of the premises to which the licence so extinguished or surrendered was attached.

4. Where, owing to the increase in population, there is a growth or extension of any city or town, and the licensing authority are satisfied that the restrictions in this Act on the granting of licences may be relaxed, they may grant a licence to any applicant, notwithstanding that the same would be otherwise forbidden by this Act, provided that such licence shall be granted only for premises situate in the parish in which such increase in population has taken place, and in substitution for an existing licence or licences held in respect of premises situate within the city or town, as the case may be, comprising the whole or any part of the parish.

5. In the case of applications under section two, subsection two, and sections three and four, the premises shall be valued under the Irish Valuation Acts at not less than—

Thirty pounds in the Dublin Metropolitan Police District and the city of Belfast;
Twenty pounds in the cities of Cork, Limerick, Waterford, and Londonderry;
Fifteen pounds in the city of Kilkenny and the town of Galway;
Twelve pounds in any other town of over ten thousand inhabitants at the census ascertained next preceding the application; and
Ten pounds in all other places.

6. Nothing in this Act shall operate to prevent the granting of new licences, where the licensing authority thinks fit, to premises attached to or adjoining premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors at the date of the passing of this Act; provided always, that such new licence as last hereinbefore mentioned shall only be granted in order to render the said licensed premises more suitable for the business carried on therein.

7. Nothing in this Act shall be taken to affect the law as to the transfer or assignment of licences from one person to another or as to the renewal of licences.

8 In this Act—

The expression “increase in population” shall be taken to mean an increase of not less than twenty-five per cent, of the population according to the last census;
The expression "licence” means any licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor granted by an officer of excise other than a wholesale beer dealer’s licence, or a licence required for a military or constabulary canteen, or a licence which can be granted without the production of a certificate of a recorder or justice; and

Other expressions shall have respectively the same meaning as in the Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1900, and for this purpose this Act shall be construed with the said Acts.

9. This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December one thousand nine hundred and seven, and no longer, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine.
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, August 15th 1902, page 474.

Even though is specifically states that the Act is only in force until the end of 1907, I suspect that it really remained in force much, much longer.

 

Let's Brew - 1904 Tetley K

I’m pretty convinced now that this is a type of Pale Ale. Specifically, a Light Bitter. It does, after all, have the classic 1045º

There have been a couple of changes to K since 1888. For a start, it’s lost 4º of gravity. Which is sort of what you would expect. There was a general downward trend in gravities in this period.

The grist has also changed, moving away all malt by including some No. 2 invert sugar. Though the malts remain a combination of pale and mild malt.

For a Pale ale, the hopping rate was relatively light, at 7.75 lbs per quarter (336 lbs). Which was slightly less than the strongest Mild Ales, X3 and XX.

As for the hops, they were all English. Worcester from the 1902 harvest and Kent from 1902 and 1903. 

1904 Tetley K
pale malt	5.25 lb	55.26%
mild malt	3.00 lb	31.58%
No. 2 invert sugar	1.25 lb	13.16%
Fuggles 120 mins	1.50 oz
Goldings 30 mins	1.50 oz
Goldings dry hops	0.50 oz
OG	1045
FG	1008
ABV	4.89
Apparent attenuation	82.22%
IBU	38
SRM	7
Mash at	153º F
Sparge at	165º F
Boil time	120 minutes
pitching temp	60º F
Yeast	Wyeast 1469 West Yorkshire Ale Timothy Taylor

UK hop acreage 1900 - 1902

In the four decades running uop to WW I there was a steep decline in the area devoted to growing hops. Falling from 60,594 acres in 1870 to 38,661 acres in 1914. Which is one of the reasons the UK was so dependent on imported hops.

At the start of the 20th century, hops were only grown in nine counties in the UK. Though in three of those - Gloucester, Salop and Suffolk - the area dedicated to hops was tiny. Just as today, most hops were grown in Kent. The county accounted for over 60% of the acreage. Far behind in second place was Herefordshire with just 14%. Followed, rather surprisingly, by Sussex with a tad under 10%. With Worcester in fourth place on almost 8%.

I'm surprised at how many hops were being grown Hampshire. Are there any still grown there today? I'm also shocked by how few were grown in Worcester. As they turn up regularly in brewing records. Yet you never see Hereford hops. I think what was happening was that the two were lumped together and called Worcester. 

UK hop acreage 1900 - 1902
Counties	1900		1901		1902
	Acres	%	Acres	%	Acres	%
Gloucester	47	0.09%	46	0.09%	46	0.10%
Hants	2,231	4.35%	2,133	4.17%	2,003	4.17%
Hereford	7,287	14.20%	7,497	14.66%	6,908	14.38%
Kent	31,514	61.42%	31,242	61.11%	29,649	61.74%
Salop	138	0.27%	144	0.28%	125	0.26%
Suffolk	4	0.01%	4	0.01%	4	0.01%
Surrey	1,300	2.53%	1,232	2.41%	969	2.02%
Sussex	4,823	9.40%	4,800	9.39%	4,541	9.46%
Worcester	3,964	7.73%	4,029	7.88%	3,779	7.87%
Total	51,308	100.00%	51,127	100.00%	48,024	100.00%
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, September 15th 1902, page 519.

UK beer imports in 1902

Well, for the first half of 1902. Long enough to give some idea of the source and quantity of beer imports.

The quantity of beer being imported compared to the quantities of beer being brewed and consumed in the UK. Imports accounted for only about 1.5% of UK beer consumption. And, when we look at the sources of imports, that imported beer seems to have been almost exclusively Lager. Which makes sense. The UK waas perfectly capable of brewing its own Pale Ale and Stout.

I was quite surprised at the biggest source of imports: The Netherlands. It was the origin of more than 50% of the beer coming into the UK. That's not what I would have expected. Which would have been Germany and Austria. Germany does come second, but Austria is nowhere to be seen. Which implies that no Pilsner Urquell was being imported into the UK. The first Lager imported into the UK in the 1860s mostly came from Austria. Which makes it even odder none was coming from there in 1902.

Though beer was coming from some weird places. Such as the USA and Japan. It seems really weird to ship beer all the way from Japan to Europe. No wonder that was some of the most expensive at 60 shillings per barrel. Sweden, Denmark and Norway make more sense, as all were locations for early Lager brewing.

To put the prices into context, standard Mild Ale cost 36 shillings per barrel. There's a large variation in average price, from 38 shillings to 133 shillings. Only the beer from the Channel Islands is around the same price as UK domestically-brewed beer.

UK beer imports in 1902
Country	Quantity				Value
	Jan. to June		July		Jan. to June.	July
	Barrels	average price	Barrels	average price	£	£
Sweden	96	57.08	15	69.33	274	52
Norway	198	88.38	45	91.11	875	205
Denmark	1,976	69.17	510	71.18	6,834	1,815
Germany	8,566	55.78	2,406	57.56	23,892	6,924
Holland	13,456	53.21	4,666	47.28	35,798	11,030
Belgium	865	43.21	462	47.10	1,869	1,088
Channel Islands	54	38.52	2	40.00	104	4
United States	31	133.55	4	50.00	207	10
Canada	-		10	96.00	-	48
Japan	4	60.00	-		12	-
France	-		2	20.00	-	2
Total	25,256	55.36	8,112	52.10	69,913	21,130
			33,368			91,043
Source:
The Brewers' Journal vol. 38 1902, August 15th 1902, page 496.

 

UK beer imports 1903 - 1914
year	barrels	year	barrels
1903	55,560	1909	54,374
1904	52,059	1910	50,927
1905	51,944	1911	53,541
1906	54,664	1912	64,706
1907	57,574	1913	64,346
1908	53,395	1914	74,205
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1912, page 154.
Brewers' Almanack 1928, p. 115.
Brewers' Almanack 1955, p. 51.